Find a Lawyer

SHERAZ MAHMOOD versus STATE

Sections 10 (3) and 2 (a) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VII of 1974), defining section 42 evidence could not convict the father of the minor daughter of the crime of rape with his minor daughter. Because it's a threat. The future of this, especially when there was no rivalry between the victim and the complainant / father of the minor girl and no suggestion was made in the false case can not be said in these circumstances. The accused were prosecuted. The time of the commission of the crime was disclosed by him and the court accepted it in the case of a 16-year-old male, if he has attained the age of 18 or obtained adulthood in accordance with Section 2 (a). According to the Medical Report of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Crime for Adultery (Enforcement Hood) Act 1985, the accused was eligible for intercourse, but the doctor did not mention other contradictory factors in his report. What happens in the boy were; growth of the genital organs; ability to conceal sperm; hair growth on the pules, axilae and chin; The reason for this is deepening, the doctor did not mention in his report any system in the present case when any positive thing was missing from this report, then it would be in favor of the accused. In view of the fact that when two explanations of a particular situation can be drawn, then the priority of the accused should be given that the symptoms were not mentioned by the doctor, presumably because they did not exist and from this evidence, As a result, the suspect was not an adult at the time of the commission of the crime how to become a advocate from Kakul lawyer